IN RE: Shy'Asia W. (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE PETITION TO TERMINATE PARENTAL RIGHTS

This termination of parental rights petition was dated and filed on April 26, 2011.   The petitioner is the commissioner of the Department of Children and Families (“department” or “DCF”), and the respondents are Cheyenne C. (“mother”) and Timothy W. (“father”).  Father was served by abode in Connecticut and later defaulted on May 24, 2011 for his failure to appear.   Mother was served in hand in South Carolina and later defaulted on August 23, 2011 for her failure to appear.   The child was appointed an attorney, who also served as guardian ad litem (“GAL”).   The Indian Child Welfare Act is not applicable.   This court has jurisdiction.   A default trial was held at which the court heard testimony from the assigned DCF worker and five exhibits were entered into evidence.

The petition alleges that the child has been found in a prior proceeding to have been neglected or uncared for and the mother and father have failed to achieve the degree of personal rehabilitation as would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the child, they could assume a responsible position in the life of the child, per § 17a–112(j)(3)(B)(i).  “Our Supreme Court has stated that [p]ersonal rehabilitation as used in the statute refers to the restoration of a parent to his or her former constructive and useful role as a parent ․ [Section 17a–112] requires the trial court to analyze the [parent's] rehabilitative status as it relates to the needs of the particular child, and further, that such rehabilitation must be foreseeable within a reasonable time ․ Rehabilitate means to restore [a ․ delinquent person] to a useful and constructive place in society through social rehabilitation.  [Webster's] Third New International Dictionary.   The statute does not require [a parent] to prove precisely when she will be able to assume a responsible position in her child's life.   Nor does it require her to prove that she will be able to assume full responsibility for her child, unaided by available support systems.   It requires the court to find, by clear and convincing evidence, that the level of rehabilitation she has achieved, if any, falls short of that which would reasonably encourage a belief that at some future date she can assume a responsible position in her child's life.”   (Citation omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  In re Jeisean M, supra, 270 Conn. 382, 398–399, 852 A.2d 643 (2004).

The court finds the following by clear and convincing evidence.

The child was born on December 27, 2004.   The respondent mother was seventeen years and two months old when her daughter was born.   The respondent father was four months shy of his fifteenth birthday when his daughter was born.   At the time of birth, mother was a marginally compliant ward of DCF herself.   Her continued placement in and cooperation with foster care was the basis for allowing the child to stay with mother.   Eventually, mother's deteriorating compliance led the department to file a neglect petition on the child's behalf on September 5, 2006.   Mother subsequently filed a plea of nolo contendere on March 27, 2007.   At that time, father's paternity was questionable, and he was out of state in the Job Corps.   He was allowed to remain silent for adjudication.   The child was found neglected on March 27, 2007 and allowed to stay in mother's custody subject to six months of protective supervision by the department.   On June 26, 2007 father's paternity was adjudicated by the court.   At some point following disposition, on an unknown date, mother unilaterally transferred physical custody of the child to father.   No notice was given to DCF or the court prior to this change.   This transfer became a court-ordered modification of custody on March 6, 2008.   Father's custody order was subject to protective supervision by the department.   On December 4, 2008, custody was modified again and the child was returned to mother subject to the supervision of the department.   Mother and the child subsequently went missing, and the department filed a motion to open and modify the disposition to commitment.   Commitment of the Child to DCF was granted on July 17, 2009, and suspended until the child was located, which did not occur until December 14, 2009.   On May 5, 2010, following an ICPC approval, the child was placed in a relative pre-adoptive home in Virginia, where she has remained to date.

The presenting issues for both mother and father were their immaturity, instability in housing and income, deficient parenting skills, and in father's case, substance abuse as well.   Mother was provided specific steps (Petitioner's Ex. 4) which included the following:  keep mother and child's whereabouts known to the department;  cooperate with a parenting education program (specifically the PEAS program at Madonna Place);  secure and maintain adequate housing and income;  meet the child's needs on a consistent basis.   Mother was almost immediately discharged from her parenting program for her lack of attendance and cooperation.   She has not followed through with any other referrals for parenting education, when DCF could make them.   Mother has often been whereabouts unknown.   She reported that she was living in South Carolina.   She would not tell DCF exactly where she's living.   Her frequent changes in residences, coupled with her refusal to disclose the location, made referrals to parenting programs, in or out of home, difficult.   Mother later agreed to cooperate with a psychological evaluation, the report of which (Petitioner's Ex. 3) was dated March 13, 2009.   This report recommended continued custody of the child with mother, but noted mother's poor coping skills and limitations.   The evaluator recommended individual counseling as well as referrals to community supports, especially in assisted living arrangements such as the Thames River Family Program.   Mother refused to cooperate with any further parenting education, individual counseling, or assisted housing referrals.   She provided no proof of stable housing or income.   She stopped visiting her child, and has seen her daughter twice since January 2010.   Mother rejected all services offered by the department.   She shows no inclination to change this posture.

The department made reasonable efforts to unify the child with mother.   Mother is unwilling to benefit from those efforts.   The child was previously adjudicated neglected and mother has failed to achieve the degree of personal rehabilitation that would encourage the belief that within a reasonable time, considering the age and needs of the child, mother could assume a responsible position in the life of the child.   The department has established its adjudicatory grounds as to mother by clear and convincing evidence.

As to father, his sole effort to parent and cooperate with the department occurred when, after accepting physical custody from mother without notice to DCF or the court, father agreed to protective supervision by DCF. Father's specific steps (Petitioner's Ex. 5) ordered him to keep his whereabouts and his child's known to DCF. As noted above, he accepted custody without notice.   He subsequently returned the child to the mother without notice.   He has been peripatetic, and his whereabouts are usually known only when incarcerated.   Father has serious substance abuse issues and has rejected all services.   He told the department he is not, and cannot, be in a position to parent.   He has no interest in cooperating with DCF or in parenting.   He has seen or spoken with his child very infrequently.   His own mother denigrates his life skills.

The department has proven by current convincing evidence that they offered help to father which was rejected.   Reasonable efforts to reunify were made and father was unwilling to benefit from them.   He has failed to rehabilitate and there is no reasonable likelihood of rehabilitation within a reasonable time.   Accordingly, the court finds the department has established its adjudicatory grounds as to father by clear and convincing evidence.

Dispositionally, the court must consider the child's best interests, taking into account the seven factors set forth in General Statutes § 17a–112(k).  In doing so the court considers and makes the seven statutory findings as follows.

1. The timeliness, nature and extent of services offered, provided and made available to the parent and the child by an agency to facilitate the reunion of the child with the parent.

Mother and father were offered timely services, including parenting education, psychological evaluation and treatment, visitation, case management, housing assistance.   Father was offered substance abuse referrals and treatment.

2. Whether the Department of Children and Families has made reasonable efforts to reunite the family pursuant to the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended.

Reasonable efforts were made by the department.

3. The terms of any applicable court order entered into and agreed upon by any individual or agency and the parent, and the extent to which all parties have fulfilled their obligations under such order.

Specific steps were set for both parents as noted above, and rejected by them.

4. The feelings and emotional ties of the child with respect to the child's parents, any guardian of such child's person, and any person who has exercised physical care, custody or control for at least one year and with whom the child has developed significant emotional ties.

The child could not have much feeling for father, given his indifference to her.   The child speaks by telephone with mother almost daily, but rarely sees her.   The child loves mother, but understands that mother cannot parent her.   The child loves her foster mother and wants to stay with foster mother if mother is not an option.

5. The age of the child.

Shy'Asia will be seven on December 24, 2011.

6. The efforts the parent has made to adjust such parent's circumstances, conduct, or conditions to make it in the best interest of the child to return such child home in the foreseeable future, including, but not limited to, (A) the extent to which the parent has maintained contact with the child as part of an effort to reunite the child with the parent, provided the court may give weight to incidental visitations, communications or contributions, and (B) the maintenance of regular contact or communication with the guardian or other custodian of the child.

As noted above, both parents have rejected all services designed to help them adjust their circumstances in a positive way.   Father maintains almost no contact with child or DCF. Mother maintains minimal contact with DCF. She does speak with her child on the phone daily, though she's only seen her twice in two years.

7. The extent to which a parent has been prevented from maintaining a meaningful relationship with the child by the unreasonable act or conduct of the other parent of the child, or the unreasonable act of any other person or by the economic circumstances of the parent.

No such prevention was suggested.

Shy'Asia is thriving in Virginia.   She maintains regular telephone contact with her mother, but almost never sees her.   She understands that her mother is not, and will not likely ever be, in a position to parent.   Dr. Randall's evaluation showed a lack of interest in the child by mother.   The child intuits the same.   Father has shown no interest in the child for years.   The foster mother wishes to adopt, and has and will likely continue to meet the child's need for a nurturing, stable, permanent home.   The child's GAL supports termination of parental rights and adoption.   The court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the child's best interest calls for termination of parental rights and adoption.

Wherefore, after due consideration of the child's need for a secure, permanent placement, and the totality of the circumstances, and having considered all statutory criteria, and having found by clear and convincing evidence that grounds exist to terminate mother's and father's parental rights, and that it is in the child's best interest to do so, the court orders:

That the parental rights of respondent father, Timothy W., and the respondent mother, Cheyenne C., are hereby terminated as to their child, Shy'Asia W., born December 24, 2004;

That, the commissioner of the department of children and families is appointed statutory parent of the child for the purpose of securing the child's adoption, with first consideration to be given to the current foster parent;

That a written report of the plan for the child shall be submitted to the court within thirty days, and such further reports shall be filed with the court as required by law;

That the Clerk of the Probate Court with jurisdiction over any subsequent adoption of the child shall notify in writing the Deputy Chief Clerk of the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters at Waterford of the date when said adoption is finalized, as shall the petitioner.

BY THE COURT

John C. Driscoll, J.

Driscoll, John C., J.